Comments on: Open-source freeloaders, inventions and replacements

Much has been made of open-source disruption. But what does it take to be successful as a stand-alone open source company?

[jgehlbach]

If you're disappointed because users are not contributing money to your open-source project, then you're definitely doing open source wrong. The OSI web site (www.osi.org) states that one of the promises of open source is "an end to predatory vendor lock-in". Any obligation to give money to a vendor of open-source software must come from the user's own conscience or business need (e.g. the need for support, training, services, or indemnification). If you want your users to be obligated to give you money in exchange for the right to use some or all features of the software, then you should choose a pure commercial licensing model, perhaps with a zero-cost "lite" version to encourage adoption.

If you're disappointed that users are not contributing code to your open-source project, then you should solicit feedback and adapt the project to meet the criteria that would encourage your users to contribute code. Using your media pulpit in an attempt to induce guilt in your users will only make potential users run away faster.

Of course, if you want it both ways, then you're kind of wedged. Something to think about before your next trip to Sand Hill Road.

[daverosenberg]

Umm, thanks? I think I clearly stated that I would prefer to see more unpaid open source. I don't know what you are talking about with media pulpit comment.

[Sadien_Inc]

Dave,

Great article.

I think some of the comments here reflect two things...

1. The bitter "cold war" that is developing between commercial software providers and software users, and;
2. A misunderstanding of open-source software licensing.

The only reason I bring up the "cold war" statement, is to illustrate how the distrust and hatred of for-profit software organizations often the catalyst that drives many software users, "free-loaders" or otherwise, to use open-source software.

Which leads me to my main point... "Free software, is not license-free software." (Through my work, and my firm, I have said those words no less than 10,000 times.)

Copyright law is such that a work, in this case a piece of software, is subject to the usage constraints set-forth by the author(s). These constraints are governed by contract.

For commercial software, the contractual consideration is typically pretty simple...
-- bring money
-- don't change anything
-- don't share any copies.

Open-source is often the opposite (in so many words)...
-- keep your money
-- change anything you want...
-- BUT if you change anything, you must share the changes.

There is obviously a COB with both. Whether it be cash, labor, resources, time, etc....

Thus... "free" is subjective, and typically a false impression.

The important thing to remember is that open-source is not "good," nor is it "bad." It is simply a form of licensing. It has its advantages, and it has its disadvantages.

Ultimately, all software is governed by copyright law. The dollars spent to use the software is immaterial, to the bigger constraints of statute.

G.C. Hutson
Chief Executive & Senior Partner
Sadien Intellectual Property, Inc.
http://www.sadien.com

[andrewz12]

Dave, you provide some interesting perspective. On a slightly different, yet related tangent, I've been developing the perspective that open source has occupied a vital place on a product development continuum, as opposed to being a separate universe from licensed software. One indication of this is open source license updates over the past seven years. Look at the evolution of the GPL terms and conditions.

It's evident that open source has been leverage to springboard great technology solutions that make it into mainstream, licensed profit models.

So, the more interesting question would be: what marks the transition between an open source solution and one that is licensed for profit? The world of open source solutions has typically drawn the line at customer support - you get the solution for free but you need to pay for support. Then, some solution providers have gone a step further and said that not only should one pay for support but certain enhancements would be paid for as well because they are not essential to core functionality of the solution.

There are shades of gray in this space that are of benefit and do not hamper community-based development.

[daverosenberg]

Very good point--I've had the same thought around this concept of "cogs and wheels" that are OSS and maybe try to make money vs. pure-play efforts. The continuum is still unclear.

[drfrost]

Everyone has heard the story about the scorpion and the fox and the bottom line is: you can't expect a scorpion to act against it's nature. Businesses are about optimizing profit. Often, unfortunately, they're about optimizing profit in the short run and behave rather myopically. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to give away IP they've contributed to a product for free, ESPECIALLY if software is their primary business model. It's simply not in their nature. There will be exceptions, of course. But I don't think it will ever be the "norm" given our current culture.

One way around this is to go with a license that forces any derivative products to adopt the open source methodology. Of course, that means that businesses are far less likely to use such products... which would be counterproductive to your stated desire.

How does the saying go? A rock and a hard place?

[hymanroth]

I can't see any conflict between open source (ie. publically viewable code) and the developer(s) making money from the code itself.

All other business models for open source either don't scale (support) or are incongruous (proprietary add-ons).

The beauty of digital content is its negligible marginal distribution cost - OSS should leverage this.